SMOKE-FREE ONTARIO ACT NOW WHAT FOR MUNICIPALITIES? BILL 164  Bill 164 receives first reading on December 15, 2004  Second reading debated February 15, 16, 21, 2005  Bill 164 renames Tobacco Control Act to Smoke-Free Ontario Act and repeals Smoking in Workplace Act  Majority of Bill 164 to come into effect in May, 2006  Bill 164 provides that the more restrictive applies where conflict with municipal by-laws

MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001  Section 115 (formerly section 213) allows municipalities to pass by-laws to regulate smoking in “public places” and “workplaces”  Subsection 115(10) states that where conflict between by-law and provincial legislation, the most restrictive of the smoking of tobacco prevails

ISSUE:WILL THERE BE A NEED FOR MUNICIPAL SMOKING BY- LAWS IF BILL 164 COMES INTO EFFECT?

WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE IN REGARD TO PUBLIC PLACES??  MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001  1.Authority is limited to “public places” and may not include “true” private clubs  2.Authority includes indoor and outdoor public places but most municipalities limit their by-laws to indoor areas  3.Many municipalities allow compromises in regard to patios even if the patio has a roof  4.Some municipalities allow designated smoking rooms, smoking in casinos, etc.  BILL 164  1.Province says Bill 164 will cover all private clubs  2.Bill 164 is limited to “enclosed public places” and specific outdoor areas for schools and reserved seating for a sports arena or entertainment venue  3.Bill 164 includes any public place covered by a roof  4.Bill 164 does not allow designated smoking rooms, smoking in casinos etc.

WHICH IS MORE RESTRICTIVE IN REGARD TO WORPLACES?  MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001  1.By-law does not apply to vehicles on a highway except for public transportation vehicles and taxi-cabs  2.Authority applies to “workplaces” in general and is not expressly limited by “private dwellings”, etc.  BILL 164  1.Bill 164 includes all vehicles used in the course of employment  2.Bill 164 does not include a place that is primarily a “private dwelling” or a designated residence in a nursing home  3.Bill 164 does not include room in a hotel, motel or inn if designated  4.Under Bill 164, health care worker has right to request person not to smoke in worker’s presence

WHICH IS BETTER IN REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT?  MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001  1.Municipality is limited by its statutory authority  2.Municipalities rely on an implied power in regard to obligations of an employer and owner to ensure compliance  3.Municipal Act, 2001 does not protect employees who seek enforcement of Workplace By-law  BILL 164  1.Province has power to add a class of premises to its legislation through the passage of a regulation  2.Bill 164 expressly states that an employer and owner shall require a smoker to leave their premise if non-compliant  3.Bill 164 protects employees who seek enforcement of Act

WHICH IS BETTER IN REGARD TO ENFORCEMENT?  MUNICIPAL ACT, 2001  4.General powers of inspection  5. Maximum fine for an individual is $5,000 if no prior convictions (although unlikely)  BILL 164  4.Specific powers of inspection set out in Act  5.Maximum fine for an individual is $1,000 if no prior convictions  6.Bill 164 allows inspector to order employer to comply with provisions of the Act

CONCLUSIONS  Bill 164 is as strict or more strict than most municipal smoking by-laws in regard to public places. The workplace provision in Bill 164 has several exceptions but many by-laws share such as well.  Province will use Public Health Unit Staff to enforce Bill 164  Need to still have Municipal Smoking By- laws?